Jack Davenport of 'Smash'

Nomination Status: It's not unreasonable to think that the actor-dominated TV Academy would like "Smash" more than some viewers. And if so, you think Emmy voters are gonna nominate Ellis?

In His Favor: It's like this: Every week, I liked "Smash" less and less, but every week, I liked Jack Davenport's performance as Derek Wills more and more. Every week I find myself really liking the brief moments that were just about Derek trying to direct this horribly doomed musical while stupid stuff happened around him. When a supporting character has me wishing that the show were just about him, that's the sign of several things, some of them quite positive. I've always liked Davenport, dating back to "Ultraviolet" and "Coupling" and he's good here.

Working Against Him: Many viewers tired of "Smash" very quickly and unless it has a surprising amount of Emmy support, Davenport doesn't have a chance. Davenport gets his own slide here because I can imagine a world in which "Smash" randomly gets 8 or 10 nominations.

This category is ridiculously loaded, and I might add that the supporting actress category is almost as competitive. I agree that Aaron Paul is the best performance in the category, and he should definitely win. As much as I enjoyed Dinklage and thought he was a deserving winner last season, Paul was the best actor in the category over the course of the season AND he had the best submission episode with "End Times." One thing that I thought was a bit cognitively dissonant was that Fienberg seemed to be saying that Dinklage made the right choice by staying where he was, even though he was the de facto lead on Game of Thrones this year. But then he seems to be saying that Paul should have moved up to lead actor, even though both Dinklage and Paul had the same reasons for staying put--they want to defend their Emmy wins, and (more importantly), they want to avoid the freight train that is Bryan Cranston. Though I agree that both are essentially lead actors, I can't blame them for ducking Cranston. I just don't understand why one actor would be praised for his decision while the other is criticized. Anyway, my other nominations besides Dinklage and Paul would be Giancarlo Esposito, Neal McDonough, Alan Cumming (maybe the writers didn't do as great a job with his character as they had in previous seasons, but that was hardly Cumming's fault, as he was excellent) and Michael Pitt. And yes, it was very hard to leave off so many other great performances. This is one of the most loaded categories I've ever seen.

John - Here are the two distinctions I'd make with Dinklage versus Paul staying in supporting when they're probably both leads:

1) Paul's staying in supporting impacts Esposito's ability to get a nomination in a way that probably Dinklage staying doesn't impact any of his "Game of Thrones" co-stars, realistically...

2) Hypothetically moved up to Lead, Paul still *probably* gets a nomination and *certainly* deserves a nomination. Dinklage becomes much less probable to get a nomination and he also probably doesn't deserve it...

But yeah, probably Dinklage should also have moved up, though "Game of Thrones" is a true ensemble, where a dozen people could *almost* be considered leads, while "Breaking Bad" has two leads...

Dinklage submitting himself as lead makes no sense - why would he do that? He won this award last year, he probably would not be nominated as Lead Actor and next year he'd have to submit himself as supporting again.

Like his character, he seems to understand the way this game is played.

Paul is right as well. If they nominated the entire adult cast of Modern Family and The Good Wife received four supporting acting nominations last year, there is no reason to think that it is either him or Giancarlo Esposito. Both of them can - and hopefully - will be nominated.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree that Dinklage wouldn't get nominated as a lead actor, though, as that category isn't nearly as stacked as the supporting actor category is. I think Dinklage would probably still get a nomination. As for Paul impacting Esposito's chances, that's true, but I don't view that as a good reason to move up to lead actor. If he moves up, then he's directly competing with Cranston, so I don't see that much of a difference. And I could be wrong, but I bet Esposito gets nominated anyway. And though moving up would open up an additional spot that could potentially go to Esposito, it also greatly reduces the chances that Paul would win. He's every bit as good as Cranston, but I just don't see him actually beating Cranston out for the award. Even worse, they could split the vote, which could lead to neither of them winning, despite being the two best actors on television. I support his decision.

Such a loaded category, and I would be more than happy with the six you are predicting. However, I would be shocked if Alan Cumming isn't in the Top 6. I don't watch The Good Wife - and your reasons against him seem sound - but it just seems like such a typical lazy Emmy move to put him in the field over somebody like Goggins, or, especially, Esposito.

You're so right - this is a tough year to be a supporting actor. I've always felt that Robert Sean Leonard deserved something for his work on House; he's the only actor that managed to shine brightly in Hugh Laurie's presence. Also hoping Mandy Patinkin gets a nod.

Sadly, Robert Carlyle is in the "other" list - if anyone from a network drama should be nominated, it should be him. Try watching or caring about ANYONE else on the screen while he's there. The man is a forceful, charismatic, brilliant actor, and managed to make his character loathsome, hateful, pathetic and likeable all at once.

Joyeful - Originally, I had Carlyle getting his own slide, but then I had 26 actors getting slides and I decided I had to remain consistent and keep it to 20 individuals per gallery, so he was pushed into "Other notables."

The chance that Emmy voters really like "Once Upon a Time" is remote, but it's not totally impossible. It's a new network hit and they may want to give it some recognition, in which case Carlyle becomes a bit more viable... We'll see...

Joyeful - It's a good question. My list here has the first NINE performances all from cable shows. I feel like Alan Cumming is just about the only legitimately plausible nominee from a network show who could break into the field here and in order for that to happen, he's gonna have to take out a cable star who I vastly prefer, so I'm sure it'll make me grumbly. The Supporting Actress, Drama field is likely to have two or three network actresses in it, so maybe voters will figure it balances out? But realistically, I don't know if they think along those lines. So... We'll see. It *should* be all cable (IMO). Dunno if it will be...

I agree with your Katherine Heigl comment, Daniel. Alan Cumming certainly made the most out the few moments he had to shine, but I don't think he should be nominated again. Let's be honest: Eli did nothing the entire season.

Josh Charles is one of my top 6 choices but my favorite (male) performance on The Good Wife this year was Zach Grenier as David Lee.

It's so stacked that there are very few snubs that would make me mad. I think Dinklage is in the wrong category. So nobody is going to submit themselves as a lead on Game of Thrones for the rest of the series' run unless Rob Lowe somehow joins the cast? Stupid. Anyway Dan, are there any nominations that would actually infuriate you? A Dinklage snub wouldn't bother me for the reasons above. Somehow, I don't feel the same way about Paul in this category since Breaking Bad already has an actor submitting himself as the lead. If Paul is snubbed, I'll be pissed.

A supporting actor, that is an actor who supports the lead as well as the storyline.

So why does John Noble keep pretending to be a support, when clearly he wants everything to be around him? Even the last episodes that would and should have been about Olivia, her past, her abuse were rewritten for Noble to do his poorwalter routine in st Claires.
Noble wants to be the popular guy, so the storyline of Walter abusing and damaging Olivia and other children, never written.

A great actor is someone who is not afraid to play a not very likable character, but even Walternate was soon gone and this season , just Walter given a speech.

And for an idea of how desperate Noble is for an Emmy, watch him in 2010 after season 2 in interviews.
As support he gives himself a better chance for a nomination, and you can submit 2 epi.

I do not agree with including him even at the end, as Letters of Transit just showed two things about his acting:
-Look at me Acting
-he does not play different versions of Walter in a built up, but he plays in 1 episode alone whenever it is in the writing, an angry Walter, agitated Walter, I feel so sorry for myself Walter, Poor Walter etc etc.
That is not playing a different version, that is playing a different mood but always the same Walter.

Watch Anna Torv in the same series, she truly created an Amber version, with all her different ways of reacting, and that changed in the Blue Olivia, with her different reactions, and on top of that the AltOlivia. That is creating new versions, (almost no backstory matarial)consistently acting within that new version.
Watch One Night in October, 2 Olivias in 1 scene.

Walter Bishop the scientist is Walter Lewin, 72 year old M.I.T. physics prof (online lectures)
The rest of Walter Bishop is the writing.

The amount of material Noble gets is insulting to the rest of the cast. It looks like (and is confirmed by Wyman/ Pinkner) that the writers start writing for Walter and at the very end they decide to do something for the rest, Peter first, then a bit for Olivia and the others if there is time left.

Fringe could have been a far better series if they would have concentrated on the past and backstory of Olivia, and with that could connect Nina, Broyles and Astrid.

To be more specific, in order for the show to remain in the miniseries/movie category, the second season premiere is being submitted exclusively as an individual TV Movie. Most obviously for the (deserved) benefit of Lara Pulver.

My goodness, this is a bonkers category. You could throw darts and end up with any 6 names and they would all probably be worthy.

I have nothing against Nick Nolte's performance but knowing the Emmys, he'll probably get a nomination for being a movie star despite it being a TV awards event. Which is disappointing given as I personally wouldn't have had him as one of the Top 6.

Also, how much tactical planning goes on behind the scenes? Could AMC have said for Paul to submit as Supporting so that he & Cranston wouldn't spilt voters in the Lead? Or say HBO wanting Dinklage to stick with Supporting as he would have had more momentum and greater chance of winning there?

There's generally some network strategy, but it's not required to explain either of those decisions: it's exceptionally rare for people to jump from one category to another, particularly if they've got a reasonable expectation of winning the existing category (which both Paul and Dinklage do) but much more dubious odds in lead.

worth noting that this is the only chance for Emmy voters to recognize Esposito -- whereas Paul can win for 2 more seasons. And Esposito created one of the most iconic tv characters of all time...and left many rooting for the bad guy.

I didn't watch "Men of a Certain Age" but just looked up the season 2 airdates. It seems that they aired episode 2.6 on 1/10/11, then aired eps 7-12 beginning on 6/1/11. Did they do this just so they could be elligible in two different Emmys seasons? For that matter, could Breaking Bad have split up Season 3 into two parts so they would have qualified for the 2011 Emmys?

Leemats - Nope. It's just the way all TNT shows are split. And most USA shows these days. It happened that the two chunks were in two different Emmy periods, but for most TNT and USA shows that isn't an issue...

I almost wish that Aaron Paul would submit as a lead actor. But then we'd lose the opportunity for another Walt and Jesse sweep like 2010 (but his leaving the category would allow for Giancarlo Esposito to have a great shot - providing he beats Dinklage.)

I am irritated by the lack of respect of AMC's "The Walking Dead" overall, but specifically for ignoring John Bernthal (Shane) in this category. He was mesmerizing, polarizing, and downright terrific in that series.

I know you don't like "The Good Wife" too much, but I seriously doubt both actors will be squeezed out. I truly think Josh Charles gives one of the 6 best supporting male performances on TV. I hope he stays.